K. N. NAGARAJAPPA & ORS. versus H. NARASIMHA REDDY

Citation: [2021] 6 S.C.R. 109 · Decided: 09-09-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
109
K. N. NAGARAJAPPA & ORS.
v.
H. NARASIMHA REDDY
(Civil Appeal Nos. 5033-5034 of 2009)
SEPTEMBER 09, 2021
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND S. RAVINDRA BHAT, JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.103 – High Courts’
jurisdiction to appreciate factual issues u/s.103 CPC – Held: High
Courts are empowered to exercise limited factual review u/s.103
CPC – The rule that sans a substantial question of law, the High
Courts cannot interfere with findings of the lower Court or
concurrent findings of fact, is subject to two important caveats –
The first is that, if the findings of fact are palpably perverse or
outrage the conscience of the Court; in other words, it flies on the
face of logic that given the facts on the record, interference would
be justified – The other is where the findings of fact may call for
examination and be upset, in the limited circumstances spelt out in
s.103 CPC – In the present case, the High Court recorded sound
and convincing reasons why the first appellate court’s judgment
required interference – The first appellate court fell into error in
overlooking important evidence and appreciating the record in its
true perspective, and reversed the decree of the trial court – High
Court, in second appeal proceeded to examine the documents in
light of the evidence led and corrected the findings as it were
u/s.103 – Impugned judgment of High Court does not expressly
refer to s.103, however, in the circumstances of the case, it is
evident that the High Court exercised power in the light of that
provision.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD:1. The jurisdiction which a High Court derives
under Section 100 CPC is based upon its framing of a substantial
question of law. As a matter of law, it is axiomatic that the
findings of the first appellate court are final. However, the rule
that sans a substantial question of law, the High Courts cannot
interfere with findings of the lower Court or concurrent findings
of fact, is subject to two important caveats. The first is that, if
   [2021] 6 S.C.R. 109
109
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
110
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 6 S.C.R.
the findings of fact are palpably perverse or outrage the
conscience of the court; in other words, it flies on the face of
logic that given the facts on the record, interference would be
justified. The other is where the findings of fact may call for
examination and be upset, in the limited circumstances spelt out
in Section 103 CPC. [Para 14][116-C-D]
2. In the present case, the High Court recorded sound and
convincing reasons why the first appellate court’s judgment
required interference. These were entirely based upon the
evidence led by the parties on the record. The first appellate
court fell into error in overlooking important evidence and
appreciating the record in its true perspective, and reversed the
decree of the trial court. Moreover, the High Court, in second
appeal proceeded to examine the documents in light of the
evidence led and corrected the findings as it were under Section
103. If the appellants’ arguments were to prevail, the findings
of fact based upon an entirely erroneous appreciation of facts
and by overlooking material evidence would necessarily have
to remain and bind the parties, thereby causing injustice. It is
precisely for such reasons that the High Courts are empowered
to exercise limited factual review under Section 103 CPC.
However, that such power could be exercised cannot be doubted.
The impugned judgment does not expressly refer to that
provision. In the circumstances of the case, it is evident that
the High Court exercised the power in the light of that provision.
Having regard to the overall circumstances, the impugned
judgment does not call for interference in exercise of special
leave jurisdiction (which is available to this Court – even at the
stage of final hearing). [Para 18][118-D, G-H; 119-A-C]
Municipal Committee, Hoshiarpur v. Punjab State
Electricity Board, (2010) 13 SCC 216 : [2010] 13 SCR
658 and Narayan Sitaramji Badwaik (Dead) Through
Lrs. v Bisaram & Ors, (2021) SCC OnLine SC 319 –
referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2010] 13 SCR 658
referred to
Para 16
(2021) SCC OnLine SC 319
referred to
Para 17
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
111
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.5033-
5034 of 2009.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.07.2008 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in R.S.A. Nos.368 of 2002 C/w no.736
of 2002.
D.P. Chaturvedi, S. N. Bhat, Advs. for the Appellants.
Mrs. Nanita Sharma, Adv. for t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.